Chattisgarh High Court
Madhav Prasad Sarathe vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:13283-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 191 of 2025
1 - Madhav Prasad Sarathe S/o Shri Lalji Sarathe, Aged About 64 Years
Working As Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) In The Office Of Chhattisgarh
State Ware Housing Corporation Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya District Raigarh
(C.G.), At Present The Appellant No. 1 Is Retired From The Post Of Junior
Assistant Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation
Wandrafnagar Branch District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. R/o H.N. 3403
Ranjhi Maharishi Sudarshan Ward No. 64 P.S. Ranjhi District Jabalpur (M.P.)
2 - Umesh Kumar Verma S/o Ramcharan Lal Verma Aged About 61 Years
Working As Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) In The Office Of Chhattisgarh
State Ware Housing Corporation, Chiroud, P.S. Chiroud, Tahsil- Gurur,
District Durg (C.G.), At Present The Appellant No. 2 Is Working As Junior
Assistant And Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation
Branch Lailunga District Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Khadya Nagrik Aapurti And
Upbhokta Swarakshan Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Through Its Managing
Director, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office N-3,
VEDPRAKASH
Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.03.25
18:01:46 +0530
2
3 - Karmik Prabandhak, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head
Office, M-3, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
20/03/2025
1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against
the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, passed by learned Single
Judge, in WPS No. 6720 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the
writ petitioners/writ appellants for grant of monetary benefits from the
month of November 2008 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the employees of
the respondent department since 1992 and their services have been
regularized as per the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State
Government. Initially, the petitioners were working as Daily Wager.
They filed a writ petition before this Court vide WPS No. 4406 of 2013
claiming the regularization of their services under the circular dated
05.03.2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
15.01.2014 directing the competent authority to decide their case of
regularization in terms of the said circular issued by the State
Government. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were
regularized w.e.f. 09.10.2014 and then the petitioners claiming their
regularization from 2008 and also claiming the difference of amount in
between the period from 2008 till October 2014.
3. Replying the writ petition, the respondent No. 1/State had submitted
that the impugned order dated 29.07.2016 has been passed by the
respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur
and the grievance of the petitioners is to be properly replied by them
only.
4. The respondent No.2 and 3 have also filed their reply to the petition
and submitted that regularization of the services of an employee
cannot be with retrospective effect, but it can be prospective. After
examining the case of the petitioners, the answering respondents have
passed the order regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f.
09.10.2014 and they cannot claim their regularization from the earlier
date. Clause-B(viii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008 itself speaks that
the regularization of an employee will be effective from the date of
issuance of the order of their regularization and not from any earlier
date, therefore, the petitioners can only be treated as regularized from
09.10.2014 and they cannot claim the benefit earlier to their
regularization.
5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 27.01.2025 holding
that the petitioners' case for regularization were considered and their
services have been regularized w.e.f. 09.10.2014 and they can be
treated as regular employees from that date itself and not from any
earlier date and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any
monetary benefits prior to the date of their regularization, which is
under challenge in the present writ appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that the
petitioners are working since 1992 and the respondent authorities
should have created the class-III and class-IV posts to regularize their
Daily Wager Employees, but they did not do so, thereafter, when the
order has been passed in WPS No. 4406 of 2013 on 15.01.2014, the
posts were created and the services of the petitioners were
regularized. The services of the petitioners/writ appellants were
required before 09.10.2014 and the petitioners were working with the
department, but despite their repeated representations, they have not
taken any action to regularize their services. There is no justification
from the respondent department for creation of posts and
regularization of services of the petitioners from 2014 and therefore
the petitioners are entitled for monetary benefits from 2008 to
09.10.2014 and the appeal may be allowed and relief may be granted
to the petitioners as prayed in the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that
after considering the clause-B(viii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008,
the order has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law
and needs no interference.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were Daily Wager Employees
with the respondent department and their services have been
regularized vide order dated 09.10.2014. Clause-B(viii) speaks about
the date from which the employees can be treated as regularized and
they cannot claim any benefit from any earlier date from their
regularization. The clause-B(viii) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"(viii) परिपत्र जारी होने के बाद प्रशासकीय विभागों द्वारा नियमितिकरण
के आदेश जिस दिन जारी किये जायेंगें उसी दिनांक से ही नियमित
कर्मचारी माने जायेंगें। पूर्व के किसी दिनांक से नहीं। पदक्रम सूची में इनके
नाम आपसी वरिष्ठता अनुसार एनब्लाक सबसे नीचे रखे जायेंगें।"
10. From perusal of the impugned order, it would also reveal that the
learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts of the case as
well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of "Registrar General of India and Another v. V. Thippa Setty and
Others" 1998 (8) SCC 690, "Union of India and Others v. Sheela
Rani" 2007(15) SCC 230, "M. Janardhan and Others v. State of
A.P. and Others" 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 298, "Masood Akhtar Khan
and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" 1990(4) SCC
24 and also "Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and
Others" 2006(4) SCC 1, passed the order dismissing the writ petition,
holding that as per the circular dated 05.03.2008, the petitioners are
not entitled for any monetary benefits prior to the date of their
regularization. This Court is not found force in the submissions made
by learned counsel for the writ appellants in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments.
11. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been
rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable
reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted
unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all
the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.
12. In view of the above, the writ appeal being devoid of merits and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
